There's a lot of ways of trying to evaluate a team.. I like making list of the "all pro types" and comparing from team to team. The correlation to excellence is consisently positive, but, of course never universal or conclusive.
This team shows four units that I'd submit are comparable to any we've ever fielded. I don't know what that bodes but it can't be bad and it is almost staggering.
1. W.R's....This unit is the best the Giants have ever fielded and second is NOT even close - though some here would argue for Toomer, Plax, Mannngham .
It's not a good argument. No one compares to OBJ and I'd argue that Marshall is the second best receiver the Giants have ever had (sorry Rote, Homer, Gifford etc.) I think Egram and Shepard are going to be as good as most of our historically best...and they're the second tier here.
2. QB....Sims was simply not as good as Eli. I was there the night he got hurt in a game to Minny that we were on our way to losing. I don't think we win the superbowl that year if Hofsteder doesn't play. Sims was accurate and a leader, Eli is better. Conerly was limited, Fran could never win the big one (and was not a real Giant), YA was old when we got him, Eli is the best ever Giant QB.
3. Secondary...I don't think many appreciate no.41. Cromartie is superb. Jack Rabbit's maybe better and Collins right now is an MVP candidate - he's that good. Ross and Webster don't start on this team, neiter does James Butler or Madison. Ehrich Barnes, Jimmy Patton, Nolan and Lynch were competent, Van Brocklin and Unitas carved them up. Eli Apple and the phenomal Collins make this the best secondary we've ever had - and it doesn't matter who the free safety is.
4. The front four....arguable....Kat, Robestelli, Mo and Grier....no, not as good. Fred Robbins,the other Fred (Colefied,a rook in 2007) Tuck and Strahan....I don't think front four to front four that group was any better - the equalizor being the great Snacks against the good Robbins. If the 2007 group was better it was because of Osi and the fury and flexiblity he gave that bunch. Call it close.
Nothing conclusive there, and not a guarantor of anything. Still, I think it's surprising, an interesting conversation jogger and an indicator of how much talent is on this team.
WR probably best now, but the early 1960s offense was pretty much unstoppable.
Lumping D-line and secondary together, yes probably the best too, although if this secondary had to function with a mediocre D-line, they wouldn't be rated nearly as high.
Good topic for discussion.
But the DBs are better, and the WRs will hopefully compare well to the Nicks, Cruz, Manningham trio. I too think you're overestimating Brandon Marshall, but with Engram included, we should have a formidable passing attack if the OL holds up.
To me the keys to this season are if the OL can give Eli time to execute well, if we can run the ball effectively and have a more diverse offense, and as always, injuries.
And where is the staff that had Lombardi as the offensive coordinator and Landry as the defensive coordinator.
And McAdoo has not yet proven to be the equal of Parcells.
RE: Marshall, the greater point is that this is a superb group. But Marshall had a thousand yards in the season before this and the onnly reason he didn't last year was the chaos (and lack of a QB ) on The Jets.
He's highly motivated (witness the money he took) and I think the Marshall we get next year is going to be superb...though all their numbers might suffer such is the depth of this group.
Frankly, if Ebram confirms truth in advertising, Sheperd enjoys 2nd. year growth, I think this could be an all time best group and not just for the Giants.
Yes, the 2007 front four was probably better at getting after the passer and Alford was on his way to becoming excellent. But we haven't seen the best of Oliver and I think the line is going to be stronger this year than last.
Lot's of talent here, division is much stronger across the board, can't wait to see how it plays out.
RE: Marshall, the greater point is that this is a superb group. But Marshall had a thousand yards in the season before this and the onnly reason he didn't last year was the chaos (and lack of a QB ) on The Jets.
He's highly motivated (witness the money he took) and I think the Marshall we get next year is going to be superb...though all their numbers might suffer such is the depth of this group.
Frankly, if Ebram confirms truth in advertising, Sheperd enjoys 2nd. year growth, I think this could be an all time best group and not just for the Giants.
Yes, the 2007 front four was probably better at getting after the passer and Alford was on his way to becoming excellent. But we haven't seen the best of Oliver and I think the line is going to be stronger this year than last.
Lot's of talent here, division is much stronger across the board, can't wait to see how it plays out.
No Simms got hurt against the Bills and Jim Kelly got hurt in the same game. Think it was the 13th game of the season. It was an icey freezing cold day. I know, I as sitting there freezing my butt off.
I was in The Meadowland, it was Monday night. There was this incredible female sitting close to me and every commercial the camera floated on to her and her T shirt was flashed on the in house tv screen.
There was a reason the camera was flashing her on the screen and both those reasons were maybe why I missed part of the game.
I remember Hostler, on the first play he took over, evaded the rush and threw a succesful lob pass while he was scrambling. Sims had been a statue in front of a ferocious Minn. rush.
I'm not going to do a google search, maybe someone here can clafify.
Are we really debating this?
Brandon Marshall better than Plax and if its close Plax was never in the conversation for HOF and Marshall might be..before last year and not counting his rookie year Marshall was over 1000 yards in 7 of 8 years. Plax can't match that and Plax played with Eli and fine systems..
Manningham...another nice receiver not as good as Shepard should be.
Then you've got Ephram and Vereen...so I don't think if you really look at it that 's it's close. But the point isn't to start a tit for tat, just to demonstrate how much talent this crew has.
Yes, he broke it in the Buffalo game at home. Icy rainy day...awful all around.
but maybe reason why we won it all...
I've been on the net and can't find an accounting of the game.
The greater point is this club is at or close to the best it's ever been with four units. Just another way of looking at it.
Wanna know something kinda sad? That huge breasted attention seeking lady is probably an old bag by now, suffering from the droops.
Could this year be better? Sure, but they haven't done anything yet. If Beckham twists an ankle, this group quickly goes from potentially great to probably awful.
As for Simms, grizz, you are completely wrong. The Minnesota game was in daylight, and Simms survived Chris Doleman relatively healthy. Phil struggled with the wind that day, but he didn't get hurt until the following week.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/01/sports/injury-is-not-likely-to-idle-simms.html
However that's not what the OP is really about. It's a pretty good argument. I'll give you the best QB, best defensive backfield (although a good FS would be phenomenal), and the best receiving core (even if 2 of the players haven't played a down yet with the Giants). I wouldn't say it's "NOT even close" with the WRs though as Nicks (pre-injury), Cruz, and Manningham were really great as was Plax, Toomer, Smith, and Boss (although we didn't get to see that for long because Plax shot himself). I can't give you the best DL either. I'd have to stick with Strahan, Tuck, Osi, and Co. for that (not counting previous 3-4 defenses of course). Maybe the most dominant at stopping the run.
There are plenty of areas the team is not very good though. The RBs, OL, and LB crew leave a lot to be desired. Right now the great groups and keeping the poor groups from looking too bad so perhaps it still evens out.
Eli has never thrown the ball like Y. A. Or even Simms. Not saying he s not the best, but those guys played in a much tougher era for quarterbacks.
Many people state opinions and then use them as facts to promote a point. Think the OP is quilts of some of that here.
I do not think he was as good as Shepard.
Toomer was a nice receiver, not close to OBJ
And Plax was superb but not as good as Marshall. Marshall with a few more good years will be in the conversatin for HOF, Plax never made that list.
No matter how you slice those lists (and I left off Del Shofner) the difference between OBJ and Toomer is so great (or the difference with OBJ and anyone is so great that this group has to get the large margin.
My point in mentioning Hostetler was that that team was so strong they won a super bowl without Sims. I loved Sims accuracy and a wonderful spiral. But not nearly the QB, in my estimation, that Eli is.
I loved Title. Came to one of the most complete teams that was ever fielded. He never won a championship, he's really more San Fran (Alley OOP) than
NY and you want to take him over Eli. That's called making an arguement to get attention.
As for Eli, his single most valuable attribute, and the one that sets him farthest apart from Simms, is durability - or self-preservation, to look at the other side of the coin. Of course, that has a lot to do with the era. In the 21st Century NFL, an immobile QB has a fair amount of leeway to avoid killshots. In 1980? Not so much, especially behind what the Giants called an offensive line during the Perkins years; but I still wish Phil had attached more value to his own safety.